MLive file photoThe Lansing Police Department should dismantle its network of surveillance cameras, an ACLU report says, bu the LPD plans to keep them in use.

LANSING, MI -- A report issued by the American Civil Liberties Union of
Michigan contends that police cameras in Lansing are costly, ineffective, undermine
privacy and democratic values, and should be removed.

"We believe this is a critical report not only to
encourage the City of Lansing to revisit its policy, but to illustrate for
other communities in Michigan that surveillance cameras are ineffective at
deterring crime, expensive, and undermine the privacy rights of residents,"
said Michael J. Steinberg, legal director for the ACLU of Michigan.

The report, "Eyes in the Sky: Lansing Residential
Surveillance and Its Intrusion on Privacy," is available online.

Lansing Police Capt. Mike Yankowski said the cameras are just one tool used to keep the community safe, and the department has no plans to remove them.

He noted that "strong privacy safeguards" are already in
place, and "there is no evidence whatsoever that any inappropriate use of the
cameras has occurred."

Lansing alone in residential surveillance

While other cities across the nation have used cameras to
aid in law enforcement endeavors, the ACLU found Lansing's deployment of the
equipment unique.

"As far as we are aware, Lansing is alone in its policy
of placing very sophisticated cameras in residential neighborhoods," Steinberg
said. "Other communities have them on major streets, where the expectation of
privacy is not as high."

The cameras offer a 360-degree view of surroundings up to
500 feet away, according to the report, and have impressive zoom capabilities.
In an example cited by the reports' authors, a police officer could read the
words on a piece of paper in a person's hand if they were within 50 feet of a
camera. License plates can be read within 300 feet, and faces are recognizable
within 400 feet.

While the LPD's policy on the camera use prohibits
recording activities in "privacy zones" such as porches, backyards and windows,
the ACLU says the cameras still record who comes and goes from residents' homes
and other neighborhood activities.

Public protests could also be recorded by the cameras,
leading to a perceived "chilling" of free speech, according to the report, as
neighbors are aware their lives are being monitored 24-hours a day.

The ACLU says it also troubled by the lack of oversight, making
the cameras ripe for abuse, including voyeurism, stalking and harassment.

The LPD no longer keeps a log of who accesses the cameras
for monitoring purposes, nor are the users monitored for potential abuse of the
cameras' surveillance capabilities.

Yankowski stressed the value of the police cameras, and said many residents are very supportive.

A separate study of the cameras, conducted by an Oakland
University researcher, found that African American residents of Lansing are
twice as likely to be under surveillance in the neighborhoods as white
residents.

Yankowski said camera placement is determined by data,
not demographics.

ACLU estimates cameras cost $2.3 million to date

Initial media reports tagged the cost of the cameras at
$350,000, but even that number is up for debate, according to the report:

"...In response to a Freedom of Information Act request,
the LPD stated in December 2009 that they had
"no records" of how much the installation and maintenance of the cameras
cost. Thus, though the LPD received private donations totaling $63,520, we do
not know how the remaining $286,480 was paid or if the cameras cost even more."

The ACLU estimates the cameras have cost Lansing
taxpayers at least $2.3 million for installation and maintenance; about $1.5
million of that was spent in 2011, when the LPD installed laptop computers and
digital video cameras in patrol cars to give officers instant access to video
streamed from the cameras.

Yankowski said operating the cameras costs $15,000
annually.

"[It's] a modest amount given the value the cameras
deliver by deterring crime, extending the vision of our police officers on the
street, and providing our residents with the peace of mind that comes from
knowing their neighborhood is safer," he said.

Are the cameras stopping crime?

Data obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests
and reviewed by the ACLU was inconclusive, the report states.

A review of the most recent analysis, from 2009 and 2010,
showed major crime increased within the 500-foot range of 5 of the twelve
surveillance areas, the ACLU found.

In three other locations, crime decreased within the 500
foot range, but increased further out, in the 500 to 1,000-foot range.

The report found no evidence that the cameras helped
officers close cases.

"No major violent crimes have been solved by the use of
cameras, including the homicide of a Lansing teenager in one of the areas under
surveillance," the report reads.

Chief Technician Jeff Kludy said the camera footage was
most frequently used to catch littering and public urination, according to the
report.

"This report, like studies from around the
world, shows that video surveillance is a costly, invasive and ineffective
means of deterring and fighting crime," Steinberg said. "We encourage elected city officials in
Lansing and throughout the state to use their precious law enforcement dollars
to adopt more effective ways to fight crime without violating the privacy rights
of their residents."